leaving the INNER keyword on a wrong line, which obviously was not my intention. The same fragment of rule (the part affecting JOINs) works as expected, that is, moving INNER/LEFT OUTER/RIGHT OUTER/etc together with the JOIN keyword. Any ideas about what's missing?

Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:17 am

SysOpSite Admin

Joined: 26 Nov 2006Posts: 6754

Do you have a separate formatting rule for JOIN. If yes, it might be interfering.

Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:47 pm

gemisigo

Joined: 11 Mar 2010Posts: 1492

No. The only other rule having the word JOIN in it is for SELECT. Could that be interfering? Not that it's something I could afford to have disabled or missing, to be honest.

Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:53 pm

SysOpSite Admin

Joined: 26 Nov 2006Posts: 6754

It shouldn't, the first keyboard is different.
What do you get if you add additional ... in front of JOIN?

I tried brute force method and added a separate rule for INNER JOIN to place it on a new line

Code:

...
INNER JOIN
...

And conceptually it does kind of what you want, except that it creates wrong indent for the INNER JOIN. I feel like it's reaching the limits of what the code formatting can do using the existing rules processing system without internal programmatic changes.

Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:50 am

gemisigo

Joined: 11 Mar 2010Posts: 1492

I guess I'll just live with one thing malformed and that will be UPDATE statements. I don't have many of those. Thanks for figuring this out.